Talk:Shivaji/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2025

Shivaji was not opposed by Brahmins. It's false statement that Brahmins opposed Shivaji's swearing-in ceremony 103.95.173.187 (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2025 (2)

The birth date is wrong so I want to change it 2405:201:C013:F873:E9C8:DB23:D745:71EE (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The article consists negative and wrong information.

The article is totally wrong and may consists conflicts. This article is written by the mughal so they wants the people to not to believe in our culture. I read many books of both mughal empire and hindu empires, they concluded that Chhatrapati shivaji maharaj is great and best. 2405:201:D043:C81D:350C:4CCD:E41:1B60 (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Change the name

Please change the name to 'Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj' as only saying the name Shivaji is disrespect to the king 2409:4042:4BCA:5506:0:0:ED89:4E0B (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We typically do not include titles in the names of articles. MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

Please add Chattrapati at the start and Maharaj at the end of name of Shivaji 2409:4042:4BCA:5506:0:0:ED89:4E0B (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - Wikipedia typically does not include titles in the names of articles. - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2025

Hi everyone, with all due respect I request you to please approve my edit request. We never call Maratha emperor by his only name. We always call him “Chhatrapati Shivaji”. I request you to please make edit. Sahiltumbare (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done — we do not use honorifics such as Chhatrapati when they are not predominantly used for the subject in academic sources. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

In the article there should have title which is 'Chhatrapati' with the name of Shivaji Maharaj. Also you should have written Maharaj after Shivaji as it shows respect towards the man who is people's true king not the King of any piece of land. So my humble request towards you to make this correction in your article as this not about any other king or emperor but about the man who faught for the justice for the people. Thank you. 2409:4081:1206:E43A:1E1:671:7337:ACDD (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see FAQ Cannolis (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I request you to please do it. 2405:201:21:C128:951B:CAE9:C4F8:EE7F (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I support you Parth king739 (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD MAHARAJ AFTER THE WORD SHIVAJI AND CHHATRAPATI BEFORE IT AS IT SHOWS RESPECT TOWARDS THE GTREATEST PERSON EVER BORN , OUR MAHARAJ SHRI CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI RAJE BHOSALE , THANK YOU 103.87.30.243 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2025

i want to add information about his good character towards women and his respect of minorities in his empire. my source is "who was shivaji?" by Govind Pansare. Silent ink (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You can propose your edits here. Capitals00 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2025

Gmaddy7276 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.RegentsPark (comment) 15:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead

@Capitals00, I am one of the principle author of the article and the lead was written after a lot of discussion in past involving many editors. You should have a look at the talk page archives. The Lead is summary of the body. The version you restored includes irrelevant points like 'the revival by Phule', that are hardly mentioned in the body of the article. So unless you have a good alternative to the long standing version of the lead, the long standing version should remain. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996 You have not only ignored the history of the page but also ignored the concerns raised. The lead is in place more or less the same since 2016 till a few months ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivaji&oldid=744011132 It was drafted after through discussion and it is in the talk page archives. Currently, it isn't as per WP:MOS and WP:LEAD at all. It is supposed to be the summary of the body, but someone just took some lines from body and replaced the original text with it.

So, I would suggest verifying information before you make a revert and assume good faith for other editors. I would request you to self revert. Akshaypatill (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The current lead is standing for months, and it wasn't disputed at all. I cannot find any objections to it in your messages that have any factual basis. See WP:STONEWALLING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996 This is not Stonewalling. Shivaji worked under Aurangazeb for a very brief time and there weren't any important event in that time, yet there is a whole paragragh about it while there are many important sections in the article with significant coverage spanning more than 3-4-5 paragraphs and still couldn't make it to the lead, for example the killing of Afzalkhan. The lead, as the way it is currently, it is violating guideline given under MOS:INTRO. So I am going to correct it according to WP:WEIGHT. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

You are ignoring the similar discussion that happened last time. See Talk:Shivaji/Archive_10#Lead. A significant period of his life was dedicated to serving the Mughal Empire. Similarly we cannot remove the fact that his legacy was revived by Phule. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

A significant period of his life was dedicated to serving the Mughal Empire.

Can you cite a source for this? Because he served at Mughal only for a brief period of time you can read it in the article itself. There is almost an essay length part of the article dedicated to his struggle with the Mughals, so I don't really get the point of this argument. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is the source: Following the Battle of Purandar, Shivaji entered into vassalage with the Mughal empire, assuming the role of a Mughal chief and undertaking military expeditions on behalf of the empire for a brief duration. [1]

There is nothing notable about this period. Most of the part in the body deals with the aftermath of this period, when Shivaji left the Aurangzeb's court in anger. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

He was a king for 6 years from 1674-1680. What about the times before that period? He served the Mughal Empire for many years which is indeed "significant". Your paragraph mentions Battle of Purandar, however, Shivaji served the Mughals since before that battle. Capitals00 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see source that says "He served the Mughal Empire for many years" before the the Treaty of Purandar. It was only after Treaty of Purandar, when Shivaji went under Mughals and that too only for a brief amount of time. Your arguments are contrasting with each other. On one hand you are defending text that says Following his defeat at the hands of Jai Singh I in the Battle of Purandar, Shivaji entered into vassalage with the Mughal empire, assuming the role of a Mughal chief and was conferred with the title of Raja by Aurangzeb. and on the other hand you suggest Shivaji was already under Mughals. Akshaypatill (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Read Gordon Stewart, Shivaji provided his service and passage to the emperor. He also conquered territories from the Bijapur in Aurangzeb's name. This was well before the battle of Purandar, in fact the Mughals only regarded Shivaji as a rebel landlord. Koshuri ^(グ) 12:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I will copy paste my response from AE page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Akshaypatill-

As Mehta put it -

Prince Aurangzeb, then the Mughal viceroy of the Deccan, was at war with Bijapur in 1657. Shivaji took his first jump into the national politics by offering his assistance to the Mughals against Bijapur in return for the recognition of his integrity as the legal ruler of the Bijapuri territories under his control. On the receipt of an evasive reply from Aurangzeb, Shivaji lost no time in taking up cudgels on behalf of Bijapur. He put Aurangzeb to embarrassment by organizing a raid on the southwestern border of the Mughal Deccan.

First, there is difference between 'working under/for someone' and 'offering assistance to someone'. And most important factor here, in this case, the offered assistance didn't even materialized into a ally due to Aurangzeb's evasive response. Akshaypatill Akshaypatill (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Shivaji was working for the Mughals even before the Battle of Purandar, that is the point. He sought legitimacy by conquering territories on behalf of the Mughals, but he was unreliable and that's why he regularly served and betrayed Mughals, therefore he was just a rebel zamindar to the Mughals. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Strikethroughing duplicate comment (I was editing from mobile and I guess I messed up, sorry for that)First, we are discussing the WP: WEIGHT here. I have already cited a scholarly source above. First, he was not working for him, he "offered" his assistant, and the ally wasn't even realised and Shivaji actually ended up attacking Mughals. I don't see how he worked for Mughals here. Second, if we add something, we don't just include a random sentence without context. Third, I am yet to see any source that explicitly says Shivaji was working under Mughals before the vassalage, you too don't cite any. Gordon himself says the Shivaji served Mughals for very brief time and Maharashtra never witnessed peace in that period because of the constant struggle between Shivaji and Mughals. Akshaypatill (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

We are discussing the WP: WEIGHT here. I have already cited a scholarly source above that explicitly tells that the ally was never materialized. First, Shivaji was not working under him, he "offered" his assistant, and the whole thing quickly went south when Aurangzeb didn't explicitly accepted Shivaji's demands. Shivaji actually ended up attacking Mughals and Aurangzeb, exact opposite of what you been claiming so far. I don't see how can we say he worked for Mughals here. Second, if we add something, we don't just include a random sentence without context. Third, I am yet to see any source that explicitly says Shivaji was working under Mughals before the vassalage, you too didn't cite any. On the contrary, the author you mentioned, Stewert Gordon himself says the Shivaji served Mughals for very brief time in duress (that's too only after treaty of Purandar and not before) and Maharashtra never witnessed peace in that period because of the constant tension and struggles between Shivaji and Mughals. Akshaypatill (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Why did you make 2 messages for saying the same thing? It is an indisputable fact that Shivaji wasnt stable, and frequently changed his allegiance. He would serve Bijapur and also serve Mughals when needed. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Mughals considered Shivaji as mere rebel Zamindar, there could be no question of "alliance" here, the only relationship they had was that of master and servant.

In the face of what seemed an unstoppable attack on Bijapur by the Mughals, Shivaji opened correspondence with Aurangzeb, offering to keep passes open and his services in return for recognition of his rights in the Pune region and the former More lands. At the same time, however, he raided several areas in the Junnar and Ahmadnagar regions, which were under the control of the Mughals. The situation abruptly changed, when, in 1656, Aurangzeb left for the north to fight for the throne of the Mughal Empire on the death of Shah Jahan. Shivaji: responded to the situation by further conquests. From the More lands which were on the top of the Ghats, he raided down into the northern Konkan and captured the towns of Kalyan and Bhiwandi and the large tort of Mahuli (see Map 2). The exact status of these lands was ambiguous because of the abrupt departure of Aurangzeb for the north. Bijapur, by the peace treaty of 1657, had ceded to the Mughals all territory it had conquered from Ahmadnagar. This included the northern half of the Konkan coast; there was no time, however, to set up an administration. Shivaji could, therefore, claim that he was seizing the territory in the name of the Mughals, on the basis of his offer to serve them.

Gordon, Stewart (16 September 1993). The Marathas 1600–1818. Cambridge University Press. p. 63. doi:10.1017/chol9780521268837. ISBN 978-0-521-26883-7. "Shivaji actually ended up attacking Mughals and Aurangzeb"

He still conquered territories in the name of Mughals despite raiding their territories. He was still working for them even when Aurangzeb was not in Deccan. Koshuri ^(グ) 11:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, you are focusing on only one problem, while there are many. Even, for a moment, if we consider your claims to be correct (which aren't backed by reliable sources, because your source nowhere says that Shivaji worked for Aurangzeb, it just mentions opening correspondence and proceeds to mention attacks by Shivaji on Mughals.), we can't just say Shivaji offered his assistance to aurangazeb and leave. Because it will be nitpicking. You ought to explain the context and what happened to the offer and the aftermath too, that the offer didn't went as expected and Shivaji ended up attacking Aurangzeb instead. And if Shivaji was already working for Mughals as you claim, Aurangzeb would have just summoned him, why the correspondence? Further the the source I cited and your quote further strengthens it, that, though Shivaji made an "offer", it never materialized into an ally due to Aurangzeb's vague response, so the 'working for Mughals' part is simply not correct nor the 'could' based on the offer because the offer wasn't successful. Instead, Shivaji even attacked regions under Mughal. Gordon says: [2]

In the previous five years, Shivaji had been very successful against the Mughals—he had sacked the port of Surat on the Western coast and defeated the army of Shaista Khan in a daring night attack.

Also, please don't take text without context. Because when Gordon says "Mughals considered Shivaji as mere rebel Zamindar", he is explicitly talking about the aftermath of Treaty of Purandar, when Shivaji accepted the vassalage for a brief amount of time and later did not honour the Aurangzeb at his court.

So, beyond these 'could's and denied offers, you still haven't provided any source that explicitly says or suggests that Shivaji was working under Mughals before Treaty of Purandar. On the contrary we have multiple sources that says otherwise.

"He still conquered territories in the name of Mughals despite raiding their territories." - Again not true/correct at all (as far as I know). But because you say so, I would like to see a source. Akshaypatill (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

"which aren't backed by reliable sources" What are you trying to say? Stewart is an authority on Maratha history.

"it just mentions opening correspondence and proceeds to mention attacks by Shivaji on Mughals.),"

Did you even read the quote? It clearly mentions the word "service" .

"we can't just say Shivaji offered his assistance to aurangazeb and leave"

Nobody is mentioning his "assistance" here other than you, he served Mughals is what is written in the lead.

"And if Shivaji was already working for Mughals as you claim, Aurangzeb would have just summoned him, why the correspondence? "

Because Shivaji was a nobody, he opened correspondence and was drafted into the Mughal service. Before this he served Deccan sultanates like his father did.

" it never materialized into an ally due to Aurangzeb's vague response"

Irrelevant, he was conquering regions by claiming himself to be a Mughal servant, therefore on their behalf."Shivaji even attacked regions under Mughal"

Sack of Surat happened much later by then he had already been rebelling against Mughal rule. Once Aurangzeb had won the throne, he sent Shaista Khan as the viceroy of Deccan to enforce the treaty according to which Bijapur had ceded the lands to Mughals previously, these lands were conquered by Shivaji on Mughal behalf but now he was treacherous and wanted a right over them.

"explicitly says or suggests that Shivaji was working under Mughals before Treaty of Purandar"

Read the quotes, "offering... his services in return for recognition" & " Shivaji could, therefore, claim that he was seizing the territory in the name of the Mughals, on the basis of his offer to serve them" has a very clear meaning. Also, are you trying to imply that Shivaji was independent? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

References

The letter from Shivaji to Aurangzeb.

I messed up in the edit summary, so I am clarifying it here.

The letter was actually written by Udiraj Munshi, The secretory of Jai Singh and sent to the Aurangzeb as from Shivaji. Jadunath Sarkar has clarified about this in his book 'House of Shivaji: Studies and documents of Maratha History', Page Number-150, last paragraph. Moreover, it is WP:UNDUE. There is nothing significant that warrant it's inclusion in the article. And as the admin clarifies here [[3]], We don't include lengthy quotes in Wikipedia articles. Akshaypatill (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The quote is not lengthy because it is not certainly that long. See WP:LONGQUOTES. Sarkar also says that Shivaji was illiterate. That's why he couldn't write the letters himself. He had ministers to read the letters for him. Capitals00 (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Capitals00 Sarkar has clearly said that it was written by Udiraj Munshi, the secretary of Jai Singh. Munshi didn't work for Shivaji, so it's not the usual letter but a strategic move.

And no, a 74 words quote definitely long and it certainly violates WP:QUOTE. The preceding sentence clearly says that Shivaji sent a letter thanking Aurangzeb. It doesn't need any kind of explanation. There is no need to add the letter itself, which makes it WP:UNDUE too. There are thousands of letter related to Shivaji, should we include each one of them? Obviously no. Moreover, the letter itself clarifies nothing. It's just plain letter, making it unfit for WP:Quote. The WP:QUOTE says, Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. The quote in question is just plain text and the question should be why we need a explanation for a simple sentence about one man thanking another. If we keep adding quotes from letters for no reason, the article will be a mess. So, the onus here is on you on why it isn't WP:UNDUE and why it notable and how it justifies the guidelines in WP:QUOTE. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you define how it was a "strategic move"? Your interpretation of WP:LONGQUOTE is not making sense because the comment, you cited, actually concerned a quote which is more than 210 words, while the one you have removed is just 74 words. This quote has been used by multiple reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

As I said, the onus is on you to establish the notability of the letter. Why we need it? It's just a letter from a man thanking another, what does make it significant to be part of an international encyclopedia? It is not notable at all nor it is historically significant. We already have mentioned in the preceding sentence that Shivaji thanked Aurangzeb. Why we need the extra explanation with a quote from the letter? You are giving undue weight to the letter. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It provides historical context. The Marathas were fickle and would align with the Mughals off and on. Without this knowledge, one may think the Maratha war lords were trying to do something other than maintain power. Big fan of the Mughals (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

There are thousands of such letters and they all provide historical context. I have already put my arguments above. The onus to prove the notability and why it is WP:DUE is on you. Because you are new here, I would suggest you to get familiar with the policies and how we accord weight to content and how we decide whether to keep the content in question or not. Akshaypatill (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

You mentioned Jadunath Sarkar above who has mentioned this quote.[4] It has been also mentioned by recent sources like Abraham Eraly.[5] It does not make sense to doubt the significance of the quote. You should comment on what User:Big fan of the Mughals said instead of commenting on him. Capitals00 (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Does Eraly have any WP:SCHOLARSHIP credentials? How far his writings should be used if he was more of a fictional writer with an BA in English testimonial? Heraklios 15:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@ Heraklios,

Eraly is a post graduate in history, and served as a professor of history at Madras Christian College. Most of his work is non-fiction. Dympies (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, mere mention in a source or two does not automatically make it notable or WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. There are hundred of pages worth content in those books, if we follow this logic, this article will become unfathomably long and unencyclopedic. Sarkar's book itself have so many such letters. I still don't see why a mere thanking letter from one man to another is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. We already have a sentence that says 'Shivaji responded with a letter thanking the emperor' which is enough. Why do we need to quote the actual letter? I am yet to see any valid argument that makes it WP:DUE. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

How is it undue? The letter is clearly relevant here as it provides the reader with the much needed background, including about Shivaji seeking forgiveness for his actions, after all he was regarded as a petty rebel zamindar by the Mughals who was subdued and made to enter Mughal service. The letter provides and explains the context preceding it. Shivaji wanted a lot of gifts for his service to the Mughals. This cannot be omitted. Dympies (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

First- Sarkar in his 'House of Shivaji' has cleared said this (P.n.-150, last paragraph)-

The above two abject letters were written in Persian, on behalf of Shivaji, by Jai Singh's learned secretary Udiraj Munshi, in the florid style and conventional phrases which Persian etiquette made obligatory on such occasions. They were then stamped with Shivaji's seal and sent off to Aurangzib as from Shivaji.

Second, about your argument, what kind of background we are talking about here? We already have explained everything in the preceding text. We even said that Shivaji asked for forgiveness and later thanked Aurangzeb making the letter totally redundant. The quote in itself contains no significant information nor it explain anything. Eraly's book is full of such letters and texts like this. Sarkar's House of Shivaji and Shivaji and his times has hundreds of such letters. If we keep adding those, this article is going to be unencyclopedic in no time, because for most of the content in the body, we have primary letters like this. Remember that Wikipedia is not a repository for all possible historical documents. Wikipedia focus on the most significant aspects of the subject. And you still haven't provided any argument for how this letter is significant in the larger view and life of the subject. Akshaypatill (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Your comment is a complete non-argument, nobody is asking for inclusion of all the letters Shivaji ever wrote. This letter continues upon the information that already is in the text, Shivaji was illiterate, so of course he had people write letters on his behalf to the Aurangzeb. It was even stamped with his seal meaning he approved it. Your arguments to remove it are appearing like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, more than anything else. Koshuri ^(グ) 12:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, whether Shivaji was illiterate is disputable. Here is recent detailed research carried out by Mehendale regarding it, spanning over a dozen of pages, which concludes that Shivaji was literate.[6]

To sum up, Duff and Sarkar’s conclusion that Shivaji was illiterate is baseless. There is enough evidence to infer that he could not have been illiterate but that he could read and write.

Akshaypatill (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to cite Mehendale, a mere popular historian who has been discarded by experienced editors even on this page,[7][8] is tendentious. He is not a reliable source. You have cited Sarkar above, and he maintains "Shivaji was illiterate ; he learnt nothing by reading".[9] Koshuri ^(グ) 13:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the above. Shivaji wasn't able to read or write, and no texts have been attributed to him. Aurangzeb the Hero (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back @Big fan of the Mughals AlvaKedak (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Koshuri Sultan, that is ridiculous , you keep pushing your own viewpoint that 'Mehendale is not reliable' despite you have been told on AE [10] to stop judging a source on your own , additionally, we are not using Sarkar's work because that falls under WP:RAJ. Pinging @Sitush, as they have done a lot of research to establish the poor reliability of Sarkar. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus exists across Wikipedia that Mehendale is an unreliable source. You have no option other than to abide by it, or you can use WP:RSN to dispute this consensus and there you will only see yourself getting proven wrong. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Which "Consensus" are you even arguing about? Here, no one is in disagreement by the fact that OBO referencing certainly helps in supporting its reliability, this is just a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem, you seem to be only one stonewalling about its dubious status. Please refer to WP:RSN. AlvaKedak (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies on you here. You are falsifying the RSN discussion. Nobody specifically discussed Gajanan Mehendale there. The consensus on RSN was that the being listed on Oxford bibliographies does "not automatically" make any source reliable. That means it is useless of you to cite this discussion in the first place, and you are just evading the discussion in question. Capitals00 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the AlvaKedak's points, I don't see any proper argument on why Mehendale is not reliable. Consensus here is not voting. Historians of international recognition like Sumit Guha has endorsing Mehendale as a Major Historian from Maharashtra (Page: 91) and Oxford Bibliographies, which is peer reviewed collection of reliable sources, describes the book in question as [11]

Mehendale 2011 is the most comprehensive of these overviews in detailing events and people important in Shivaji’s rise to power.

Mehendale, Gajanan Bhaskar. Shivaji: His Life and Times.- A richly documented account of Shivaji’s rise to power that is particularly strong in detailing the military and diplomatic campaigns that led to the geographic expansion of Maratha influence. Also includes very useful appendices, including a review of the historical sources available in many languages. In other appendices, Mehendale reviews the documentation relevant for debated topics, including Shivaj’s birth date, the role played by and Shivaji’s relationship with the Saints, and whether Shivaji was literate.

And seems like you missed a few comments like- [12]

Moreover, I am yet to see any scholar calling the work biased or unreliable. On the other hand, we have scholars like Irina Glushkova using the book as a source

[13]

So, I don't see any credible argument against Mehendale yet, except some opinion from a couple of editors, which again are not backed by any source and which directly challanges the opinions of scholars like Sumit Guha or reliability of scholars like Irina Glushkova who has used the book as source for there scholarly works. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

+1 AlvaKedak (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

His work is not from an academic publisher. It is from an unreliable source. It cannot be accepted as a reliable source.

You can find more sources citing Koenraad Elst, Sanjeev Sanyal and other similarly unreliable sources. That does not change the standards of Wikipedia when it comes to identifying reliable sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I will respect the judgments of academics and scholars like Sumit Guha and Irina Glushkova (also the expert academics at Oxford Bibliography who calls it the most comprehensive text on the subject). They think the work to be reliable enough to cite in there scholarly works. If you disagree with Guha or Glushkova or argue that they aren't relible, then it is totally different matter. Anyways, you can take it to RSN, if you don't think he is reliable. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I would regard reading and writing as equivalent to computer coding of the 1600s.A ruler or high status individuals didn't need those skills when they had a multitude of administrators and clerks (karkoons per Grant Duff) to do it for them.Duff says that the skills of "karkoons" were looked down upon by people of Shivaji's background. Akbar was illiterate too, and that didn't stop him from consolidating the Mughal empire.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)